Worthless Willard walked through a Chinese sweatshop and saw only a
business opportunity. Oh he commented on the 10 girls to a dorm with
one bathroom, just as if he was giving a weather report. Outside of his
church and family he has no heart, no humanity and no eyes to see the
truth of the world around him.

His business experience consists of destroying jobs and families. His
outsourcing and company destruction has undoubtedly cost people their
health insurance and their lives.

Yet good hearted people will vote for him because they can not see him
as he is. Forget their image of President Obama, and how Toxic News has
distorted his every word with chopped videos and hand picked parts of
speeches, they see Mitt as a Christian who will return America to the
God they believe in, not even looking at his religion which isn't what
they think.

They are not voting for Mitt, but against the shadow figure of President Obama that they believe in.

When this election is over I hope the obsession with religio/politics
ends and they come to their senses. I am sick, tired and disgusted with
their e-mails and public rantings, and offensive bumper stickers.

Me:

Correct me if I'm wrong:

1. the Chinese workers were working there voluntarily

2. since they chose to work there, that would suggest that working there is their best option

3. the working conditions are less than ideal, but the workers have
better lives with the factories then they would without the factories

4. the industrial revolution helped tremendously in increasing prosperity for the people who participated in it

5.Investors in Chinese factories make money, and so do the workers

"Outside of his church and family"

Except for the places he has a heart and humanity, he has no heart or humanity.

It is always fun to converse with the left. While talking to the left I have learned that I am: "racist," "a clown," "fascist," "hate the poor," etc. What did you mean by "people like you"?

How does stories of republican voter fraud support the claim that "republicans want to take your vote away"?

Wouldn't voter registration lead to discouraging voter fraud from either side?

BTW, and this is just a suggestion: When I use a source in an attempt to point out where a liberal is wrong, I try to use liberally biased sources. You've used all liberally biases sources too, but you are attempting to convince someone on the right, who has reason to doubt your sources.

If you want to convince me that voter ID is bad, then show me articles from conservative or libertarian sources, the same side that I am on. Like this article: Voter ID Regulations: Real Problem; Wrong Solution

I admit that Obama needs a good showing at the debate. I admit he's got
his faults. But Romney and corporations are NOT what we need. The
gazillionaires that are trying to BUY the Oval Office haven't provided
the outcome they expected -- a slam dunk election. So now the Koch Bros.
and other CEOs are threatening their thousands of employees that if
Romney doesn't win this election, they will all be in the unemployment
lines.

This is the most blatant act of tyranny I have ever seen in my lifetime,
and that's coming up on 75 years now. We CANNOT let this contingent of
corporate dictators win the election and start pulling the strings for
how this country is run.

dis you notice how three of Obama's top 7 campaign contributes were the "big bad" wall street banks?

If companies are "threatening" jobs, then that would make sense because
Obama has raised their cost of doing business. This has left them with
less money available to hire employ people. See ACA for one example of
raising the cost of business.

Sorry, don't agree with you. No. 1, most of those you mentioned are
now in the Romney camp. They are making billions more than they were
when Obama took office, but they don't want to spend any of it to hire
new employees. Their bottom line would come back down to simply
"profitable" and no longer be super-super-lucrative.
Some of the corporations want ALL EPA regulations lifted so they can
pollute with impunity. Wall Streeters want to be de-regulated so they
can go back to their corrupt systems that took this country near the
cliff in 2008.
Don't ask me to embrace the CEOs that are so greedy they care nothing
about the rest of the country. And don't ask me to embrace ANY employer
that would stoop to forcing an employee how to vote.

Me:

Many of those big banks are indeed now supporting Romney. Did you criticize Obama in 2008 for having their support like you are now criticizing Romney? Or are their campaign contributions only bad when they support a candidate that you don't?

Many big companies in America (GE, GM, Chrysler, healthcare insurers, and many big banks) have gotten subsidies and favorable laws during this administration and previous ones. We can both agree that crony capitalism is bad. But laws that Obama has signed, like ACA, the new CAFE laws, and his goal of taxing the rich all make it more difficult to plan ahead and hire more employees.

The government has thousands of employment rules that make it more difficult to hire people. Laws like minimum wages, overtime laws, and laws requiring breaks all make hiring employees more expensive. You can argue that we are better off with these laws, but you cannot argue that they don't make it much more difficult to hire people (or that we live in a free country).

Some libertarians want the EPA eliminated as well. Many of us hunt and fish and otherwise spend a considerable time outside. We want the EPA gone because it infringes on our freedoms and slows our economy. If someone is harmed then the harmer should, of course, pay for the damages.

We have 300,000 pages of laws covering every aspect of our lives. You cannot claim that, in the presence of all of these laws, that it was a lack of regulations that caused our current situation. You might argue that the regulators did not do their jobs. If so, how would adding more laws, that they won't enforce, improve anything?

Another thing to take note of: the two worst depressions in American history happened when the government tried to help more than at any other time. (See: New Deal, Stimulus)

I was not asking you to embrace CEOs. Some of them are bad. Just like some teachers, nurses, and scientists are bad. But they are not all the villains that you are claiming them to be.

I think that we can agree that all subsidies and bailouts for big businesses, or anyone else, are bad and we should encourage our politicians to oppose them in the future.

Where is the evidence that says some businesses are "forcing" their employees to vote in any way?

Nearly all union money (which comes from dues, weather or not the union member wants to belong to it) goes to democrats. Are you opposed to this as well?

Union members fined for not supporting Warren: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/are-unions-fining-members-who-dont-support-warren_654203.html

This is an election about people(Obama) and Capital(Romney). If we get
romney capital rules and the purchased benefit programs of americans are
evicerated, (except for seniors, he read the 08 exit polls). Capital
will be determined to be able to do no wrong and wealth will be the
ultimate good.

History tells me this is the most likely outcome of the current greed
based population of the United States. I can only Hope 40 dem senators
will hold the line, but..... That seems unlikely.

Which then means 2016 or 2020 will be elections on reciprocity of lack
of benefits for the elderly. After all why would the dominant segment
of the population at that time(People with an insecure future) want to
continue paying for seniors(To have a secure future) while they have to
provide for themselves 100%. Answer they won't....

Me:

Are the approximately half the population that support Romney not people?

By people I mean an inherent belief that government has a proper role ensuring a minimal level of suffering.

Romney doesn't believe that he believes you can stand in the mormon
churches soup kitchen line, assuming you meet their tests for doing so.

And by capital I mean capital is completely unregulated or regulated so
only as to limit liability of action in the courts(Sham regulation) vs.
allowed to operate within acceptable limits so long as they don't harm
the public welfare. Dem's are decidedly not anti capital but they
aren't pro darwinian capitalism(with few exceptions).

Me:

"ensuring a minimal level of suffering."

I doubt that that is what you meant. Although that does seem to be what happens to the people who get the most "help" from the government.

I'm afraid that I don't understand your second sentence.

What do you mean buy: "I mean capital is completely unregulated or regulated so
only as to limit liability of action in the courts"?

Are you talking about campaign finance reform? or something else?

I'll bet that there is a law, however, about any subject that you mean.

"What Obama has to show..." is that we should ignore our poor economy,
no federal budget, and increasing federal debt in favor of supporting a
president who "supports the people." Nevermind his actual results.

By "His actual results have been outstanding, and our economy is doing much
better, thank you." do you mean "His results have been awful, and our economy is still stagnant, but don't worry he plans to tax the rich."?

***

Me:

"What Obama has to show..." is that we should ignore our poor economy,
no federal budget, and increasing federal debt in favor of supporting a
president who "supports the people." Nevermind his actual results.

You might want to write your Republican Congressman. We have no budget
because they ran home to campaign and left the budget on the table. They
refused to fund infrastructure, creating jobs; they refused to fund
education; they refused to bring the Jobs Bill to a vote. Perhaps that
is where you should direct your attention..

Me

Not even the democrats in the senate voted for Obama's last proposed budget.

It's not enough to say that the problems haven't all been solved. You
have to also be proposing something that isn't the same as what got us
into the mess in the first place, and Romney's not.

Me:

Claiming that Romney's stated policies helped cause our current
depression are half correct. But not the half that you think. It was
the government's interfering with the housing market and poor monetary
policy that caused our current situation. And the stimulus has only
made things worse.

"The summer 2007 world-wide financial crisis and the recession in the
U.S. that followed later that year have caused a number of journalists
and non-Austrian economists to recognize the essential element of the
Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT): monetary excess triggered by
central bank actions “lead to a boom and an inevitable bust” (Taylor,
2008).1 Responding appropriately to the current bust, or for that matter
any crisis, requires first understanding the root cause. In the present
situation, the underlying enabling cause was recently described from an
Austrian perspective by Rizzo (2009) when he wrote that “[w]e must
remember that the current state of affairs was caused by the Federal
Reserve’s excessively low interest-rate policy from about mid-2002
through the third quarter of 2006,” which “resulted in significant
economic distortions and/or imbalances."

Bye the way, the candidate that I will be voting for does have a better
plan for improving the country. Including a budget that would be
balanced in his first year!